The ChangingMinds Blog!

A classic understanding of the political system in America (and generally in
Western, democratic countries) is of the Haves vs the Have-nots. But this is not
accurate, even as a simple model.

Classically, the Haves sit on the political right. In America they are called
Republicans. Elsewhere they are called Conservatives. They have most of the
money, and are focused on keeping it and getting more. In life, they are the
senior managers and business owners (or perhaps their families). They like power
but not taxes. They live expensively and away from the common people.

In opposition, the classic Have-nots are on the political left. In America
they vote Democrat. Elsewhere they may be called Labour. They have relatively
little money and are focused on survival. They live close to one another in
small houses. They gain power through banding together in large numbers. When in
power, they seek to protect jobs and increase welfare.

Yet if this was the simple truth, a democracy would always be run by
Democrats. By definition, there are many more Have-nots than Haves. So what's
up?

A key factor is that there are third and fourth groups.

The Haves can be broken into two groups. The Have-lots are the 1% elites who
are wealthy enough to buy much of what they want without worrying about cost.
They may have inherited wealth, been successful in business or been in a
high-paying job for many years. In politics, they are likely to be Republican,
where they seek low taxes and limited regulation. Their concern for others is
seen in their foundations and charity balls. Tax-deductible, of course.

The Have-enoughs are the classic middle classes who have achieved the
aspirational independence, picket-fenced home and all. They work hard in
professional jobs or as reasonably successful business owners. They live
comfortably but are still prudent. Politically, they may well be Democrats, with
liberal views around preserving the environment and helping those less fortunate
than themselves. They may also be aspirational to become a Have-lots (or fear
becoming. Have-little) and so adopt a Republican position.

The Have-nots can also be divided into two. The real Have-nots are actually
Have-nothings as and include vagrants, those on welfare and those who depends on
charity. The may fall into this category for various reasons, including being
runaways, having disabilities, and having fallen on hard times despite doing
their best to support themselves (and possibly dependents too). While not a
small group, they are not huge either and often lack direct political power.
Their cause is often championed by those in higher groups, most typically
Democrats. The Have-nots are unlikely to be politically active and may not even
have voting rights (which means they are not attractive to political parties).

A large group who are often called Have-nots are more accurately Have-littles.
These are the mass who work in low-paid jobs and for who life is a touch-and-go
struggle as they try to avoid becoming a Have-not. They include people who have
worked hard for many years and who are tired and disillusioned. In political
communications they get patronising labels, such as 'hard working families'
which tacitly recognizes the survival trap that keeps them near the bottom of
the pile.

A further group that spans several levels are the 'Vulnerables' and include
all groups containing people who can be the recipient of bias and unfair
treatment. These include migrants, ethnic and religious groups, those with
different sexual preferences, people with disabilities, women, older people and
so on. Their disadvantages can be a spur to action when they define their lives
through fighting through adversity. In this way they can become Have-enoughs
and, occasionally, Have-lots. Overall, though, they are largely spread through
the Have-littles and into the Have-nothings.

While opportunity still exists, it's not what it was. A common experience is
of hard-working Have-littles losing their jobs as globalization led to cheap
imports and industrial wastelands. Where they can, many have clung on in
lower-paid and insecure jobs, as zero-hours contracts and the 'gig economy offer
them scant lifelines. And, to add insult to injury, they see Vulnerables getting
preferential treatment as liberal-minded Have-enoughs implement 'fair' policies
that erode what little advantage they had. Vulnerables get welfare as the Have-littles
struggle to make ends meet and, paradoxically, seethe at the unfairness of it
all. Women and people of ethnic and diverse groups get promoted as positive
action policies rebalance management ranks. To add insult to injury, Have-littles
may see Environmental, health and safety laws as laudable but dangerous as they
destroy jobs and are yet another thing that gets treated as more important than
the ignored Have-littles.

A paradox of the Have-littles is that while they might be expected to vote
Democrat, many vote Republican. This is the Republicans' secret sauce. By
selling an anti-liberal message, promising greater security, and crafting
evocative emotional appeals, including against welfare and environmentalism,
they acquire a rich harvest of votes. While this may not be popular with
Vulnerables, it gives voice to the fears of the many non-vulnerable Have-littles,
in particular communities which are dominated by non-vulnerable men whose
authority is accepted by others around them.

This creates an interesting skipping pattern, where Republicans skip liberal
Have-enoughs in pursuit of the Have-little majority, while the Have-enough
Democrats skip many of the Have-littles to try and help the more deserving
Vulnerables and Have-nothings. A reverse effect happens too, as the Have-littles
envy and rail against Have-enoughs who are their immediate seniors or an
annoyingly well-paid professional, from dentists to consulting engineers.
Out-of-reach Have-lots, however, are idealized and idolized as celebrities and
potential champions who will save the Have-littles, just as the Have-enoughs
seek to save others.

The perception of fairness has a particularly polarizing result as different
groups believe themselves entirely right in wanting what they think is fair.
Have-lots think it fair that they keep their high but hard-won incomes and to
run their businesses as they think fit. Democrats seek a balanced fairness,
where Vulnerables get special treatment to compensate for the bias they receive
(Vulnerables of course agree with this). Have-littles want jobs and to not be
the victim of Democratic bias that gives Vulnerables unfair advantage.

An electoral dilemma with Have-littles and Vulnerables is that their
disillusionment with politicians and the state means that many do not vote. This
can harm political parties, particularly when a significant community leans
towards one or another party. Ethnic groups, for example, are far more likely to
vote Democrat. If such groups can be energized, for example as done differently
by Barack Obama and Donald Trump, they can have a huge electoral impact.

Taking this slightly larger segmentation, we can question again the rationale
for voting Democrat or Republican. Have-lots Republicans want to keep their
millions so want low tax. They also like few regulations that constrain their
businesses. Have-lots and Have-enough Republicans fear losing their lifestyle
and the crime that threatens this. Have-little Republicans just want more
security, which translates first into decent jobs. They often live in tough
areas and so also fear crime.

Have-some Democrats take a wider, more social view. Have-little Democrats
feel their plight more as a community, for example being oppressed because of
the shade of their skin. Their concern extends further than the self and more
into social concerns.

A simple conclusion is that the Republicans appeal to the basic human drivers
of fear (Have-littles) and greed (Have-lots) while Democrats have the more
difficult task of appealing to compassion (Have-enoughs) and community
(Have-nothings). Why? Because fear and greed have a self- or family-focus, while
compassion and community appeal to those who are other-focused or we-focused.

Yes, it is a simplification. There are socially-minded Republicans and
selfish Democrats. Yet Self vs Social makes more sense as a characterizing model
than Haves vs Have-nots, as discussed above.

A further way of understanding this is in the collision between capitalism
and democracy. Capitalism encourages wealth and the self-based view. It rewards
individual success and assumes social concern will naturally arise from this.
Democracy is the check on capitalist selfishness. While people may still be
selfish, the public nature of democracy encourages a strong social concern.

What does this mean for politicians? For Democrats who seek to address
natural Democrats, they should appeal to social values and ethics. To appeal to
those with Republican leanings, they should make financial and security appeals.
Meanwhile Republicans might woo Democrats by emphasizing community and the
environment.